It's on us. Share your news here.

Durham Residents Split on Removing or Saving Oyster River Dam

Posted on January 21, 2021

DURHAM – The Town Council will debate the fate of the historic Oyster River Dam on Feb. 15.

The council is scheduled to meet with the engineering firm it hired to outline the options for the dam’s future, during its Feb. 15 meeting, according to Town Administrator Todd Selig.

“In the minds of long-term Durham residents, this is a very significant decision,” Selig said about the dam, which is also known as the Mill Pond Dam and sits on the Oyster River. “The dam is an iconic structure for many members of the community. It’s a historic structure that’s on the N.H Register of Historic Places. It’s been something the town has been actively discussing since around 2002.”

“It’s not something that came out of the blue, it’s been a very active topic for a long time,” he added.

Despite its historic status, the state’s Dam Bureau has identified several safety deficiencies associated with the Oyster River Dam, including concerns with its overall structural integrity and stability, according to a study prepared for the town by engineers VHB of Bedford.

The dam doesn’t meet current state safety standards, and the town has been “notified of these problems in multiple Letters of Deficiency.”

The town has spent about $300,000 for VHB to evaluate and consider the options for the dam, Selig said.

The two main options are dam removal and dam stabilization. The latter option is much more costly and doesn’t resolve all the issues, according to the VHB study.

The dam, which is roughly 140 feet long, forms the 9.5-acre Mill Pond, which has been used for fishing, boating and bird watching over the years.

But the water quality in the pond is now impaired, which the Town Council also believes should be remedied, Selig said.

“I think it’s important to note while the issue at hand that most people think about is the dam, there is also an important issue the council has indicated must be addressed and that’s the water quality in the pond,” Selig said. “It is an impaired water body as a result of the impoundment.”

The Town Council held a public hearing on the options earlier last week, with about 30 members of the public speaking, the majority of whom favored keeping the dam in place, Selig said.

The council also received numerous emails about the issue, “the majority of which favored dam removal,” Selig said.

Durham residents passionate about dam

Durham resident Joe Friedman supports the removal of the Oyster River Dam.

Friedman, who lives adjacent to the downtown, asked the Town Council to “please take the appropriate action and remove the dam.”

“It makes sense ecologically, is the clearest and best decision from an economic point of view and will improve the quality of Durham for the great majority of its residents,” Friedman said in a Jan. 13 email to the Town Council. “The dam removal in Exeter went very well and now the downtown and upstream are healthier.”

Longtime Durham resident Michael Mullins told town officials he cares “about the town, history, traditions and community.”

“I have read a good number of the letters, pro and con, from the community about the issue of the dam removal … after due consideration, I strongly believe, along with many, many residents, that the dam must be saved,” he said in a Jan. 13 email to the town. “Considering the interest of Durham citizens on this issue, should this issue be pursued, the dam’s fate should be decided by a full town referendum.”

Mullins listed a variety of reasons why he thinks the dam should be preserved, including its use for recreation, the fact it’s a “gateway into Durham passed by thousands of cars daily”  and the Mill Pond’s “ecosystem is established and natural after 370 years.”

“In sum, I believe this historic community landmark in the very heart of Durham must be protected,” he said.

Deborah F. Johnson has lived in Durham for 32 years and said she is “strongly in favor of the removal of the dam for several reasons.”

When her family first moved to town, they “very much enjoyed Mill Pond,” she said in a Jan. 11 email to town officials.

“But as the pond became increasingly choked with weeds and the swans departed, our enjoyment of Mill Pond declined. When the town chose to dredge the pond (at considerable expense) we were quite hopeful, but the effects of the dredging were temporary and Mill Pond became increasingly marsh-like in character,” she said.

Johnson noted “although the dam and pond have commercial and technological significance in Durham’s history, we would do well to remember that our region’s human history extends further back than the colonial period and that free-flowing rivers played an important role in the lives of indigenous peoples.”

Susanna Polk Nichols grew up in Durham and recently bought a nearby historic home that she’s restoring.

Her family moved to town in 1965, and she recalled spending winter afternoons and weekends “skating with friends on the Mill Pond and up the Oyster River.”

“I often walked or rode my bike past the dam and pond on my way to school or town,” she said in a Jan. 10 email to town officials. “These are among the most beautiful and iconic images I know of Durham.”

Durham resident Jason McKibben supports removing the Oyster River Dam.

“When considering the historical impact of the Oyster River on Durham, I encourage you to include history in its entirety as opposed to the industrial history which occurred after the displacement of indigenous people,” he said in a Jan. 9 email to town officials. “The river itself was damaged by the construction of the dam. Removal would bring the landscape closer to its natural state, improve water quality and promote the free movement of fish.”

Removing the dam, he said, would honor “the town’s prior acknowledgments of the impacts of colonialism on indigenous people, as when in 2017 the town council approved the creation of Indigenous Peoples’ Day to replace Columbus Day.”

Comparing the cost of options for dam

VHB stated in its study the preliminary cost for dam stabilization is roughly $4 million, but that option wouldn’t address water quality in Mill Pond nor comply with the Dam Bureau’s safety regulations.

Dam removal would cost, according to VHB’s preliminary estimate, $1.3 million and would address the water quality in Mill Pond.

Selig stated that “one of the themes we’ve heard from some residents is don’t make a decision now, there’s still too many unanswered questions.”

“But that’s what prompted the council to spend $300,000 on the feasibility study, which did a phenomenal job answering those questions,” Selig said.

Source: fosters

It's on us. Share your news here.
Submit Your News Today

Join Our
Newsletter
Click to Subscribe